Well, here it is 2022…
And a client wants us to use the old 1995 five-digit MasterFormat. (facepalm.)
I think this thread had the most recent conversation on it.
I am highly, HIGHLY, HIGHLY urging our project team to convince them to use the current standards.
Using an eighteen year old standard sure doesn’t give me confidence in their technology products.
Loretta,
Yes, this: “Using an eighteen year old standard sure doesn’t give me confidence in their technology products.”
If they are a tech company, please press them on that. How do they expect anyone to take them seriously if they haven’t updated since 1995?
Give them an example from their own technology. What if their mobile phones were still really big, with long antennae, and not touch screens?
Apparently, they will be using the old version for ever and ever and ever and ever…
I guess I got to get out my old RAZR V3 flip phone with the 2G technology…
You can also point out that it will most likely take you twice as long to do the specifications making sure they are in compliance with current codes, etc., and there will absolutely an increase in price - perhaps double.
That ship has sailed.
The new sections that are not part of the Owner’s provided ones are using six-digit numbering… Which means that SOME plumbing and HVAC are mixed in “Division 15” and then some are separated out again in Divisions 22 and 23…
Sigh…
I just shake my head…
I have been told NOT to press the issue.
How about offering a compromise… Say you’ll use 1995 method for Divisions 2 through 14…
There is still the old “Sitework” vs. “Existing Conditions,” “Earthwork,” “Exterior Improvements,” and “Utilities.”
I have no say in the matter.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that they continue to use this numbering on their very large projects. But I am told that they do.
Make sure your objection and the reasons for it are documented. When something goes south (and it probably will), you will be on record for disavowing the antiquated system.
Thank you for the advice. I will do that.
Do any AHJ’s ever say anything about project manuals using current MasterFormat? Does AIA?
It’d help if I had more to back me up that the mere “good practice.” (Though I know that “good practice” should be reason enough.)
That would be a deal breaker for me.
Why does your client even care?
Can you just attach their specs as is and let them worry about it? Maybe include a statement in “Division 1” that references to out-of-date Code requirements and products shall be referred to Owner for resolution?
I hope you have already gone on record internally with your client that you have no responsibility for errors and omissions due to Owner’s instructions to forego industry standards, just to have it on record. As suggested by Lynn, I know from my own previous projects that using outdated specs as a starting point literally takes twice as long, or more, that starting right.
Perhaps the first draft should use Roman numerals.
The strongest lever I used was the MEP consultants. It took them a while to convert, but when they did it REALLY ‘p—ed them off’ to go back to the 5-digit system. So let them leed the charge; you be the good guy.
Cripes. I drafted the email. But we are stuck with these specs – they have already agreed to use them.
I can’t bring myself to hit “send.” I know you all a right. But I am not exactly a principle in the company.
It’s not only that they are eighteen years old: They are a MESS!!! Oh. My. God.
Back in 2013, I worked for an architectural firm that used the ConDoc system. (Material components on the drawings are identified with section numbers instead of names.) We were hired by a school district that insisted the specifications be written in MasterFormat '95 five-digit system. So not only was is a pain for the specifier (luckily not me) but also for the architects.
The firm begged and pleaded with the school district to use the new MasterFormat six-digit numbering system. Realizing it was going to be a ton of work, the architect even proposed lowering their fee. The school district held their ground.
In the end the specifier and architects just lopped off the last number of the six-digit number. Some numbers still had to be changed. It was a challenge and the firm never pursued another job with that school district.
Loretta: Prepare the specifications in your current favorite form. Once complete, paste the text content into and overwrite the old specification content. Adjust fonts, spacing, etc. to match the old. It’s a good bet none of the old spec enthusiasts ever read the stuff. Use David’s approach to the numbering. This way the client gets good quality spec content and maintains the illusion that they are right.
Phil, brilliant!
“Do any AHJ’s ever say anything about project manuals using current MasterFormat?”
I’ve only ever dealt with 2 AHJs that even looked at the specs. When I crossed over to the dark side and became a plan checker myself, I asked to see the specs on a project once and everyone including my boss the BO looked at me like I’d grown a second head…
Isn’t the numbering system considered Architect’s means and methods and therefore should not be dictated by the Owner?
Does the Owner tell the Architect how to number their drawings/details or what hatch pattern/symbols to use?
Thanks! This is all great!
Thanks to you all, I was well prepared going into my meeting with my boss and the rest of the design team.
I asked that they approach the client and specifically request updating the specifications. I also told them about specific issues with the sections I looked at, and other problems that may result bu using the old specs. And the client was “very receptive” to the idea of an update. I am very relieved. Apparently, no one had pointed out any of the things I discovered just in looking at about three sections to the client before.
When I spoke with my boss and the design team about my reservations, one of the things they told me was that the client had some very large projects with another large architecture firm. I have met one of the senior spec writers for that firm and I told them that I was VERY confident that they would NOT let their firm use these client specs.
So, yay!
Thank you all!
(While I was looking at the old specs, I had already started considering doing what Phil Kabza suggested – that would be the best way to get around many of the problems and protect us.)